Trinity, history of the

"For there is ONE GOD and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ
Jesus" (1Ti 2:5).

The history of religion has always been one of degeneration
from the originally revealed pure monotheism to various forms of polytheism.
"Christianity," as popularly known, has been no exception.

The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, is very emphatic
about the absolute oneness of God. When asked which is the first commandment of
all?" Jesus answered (Mar 12:29): "The first of all the commandments is; Hear, O
Israel, THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD." He was quoting from the words of Moses in
Deu 6:4. This is the consistent story of the Bible. There is not a word about
three gods in it from beginning to end.

"Christendom" today has degenerated to a belief in four gods,
three good ones and one evil one. Some parts of Christendom have five gods, as
the Roman Catholic Church, which has added a "Mother of God" who is in their
system of belief the supreme deity beside a host of demi-gods, one for every day
of the year (and more), all of which mythical and man-invented deities are
worshipped and prayed to.

The doctrine of the Trinity is stated in the Athanasian Creed
(see Lesson, Athanasian Creed) -- which
concludes that section of the creed with these words:

"HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE
TRINITY."

This is the prize and tragic example of the natural mind of
man speculating upon divine things rather than being content to humbly accept
the simple testimony of Scripture.

In all Scripture, there is nothing to justify this absurd and
self-contradictory mishmash. While truly we can never hope with mortal minds to
comprehend God, still the revelations He gives of Himself, and of His Son, and
of His Holy Spirit -- His power and presence which fills all immensity and works
His will -- is clear and simple and reasonable and a tremendously satisfying
relief from the befuddled speculations of the Creeds.

The doctrine of the "Trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible.
The following quotations from recognized historians will give the background of
the period in which this doctrine was developed, showing the general conditions
of Christendom of the time, the philosophical influences at work, the methods of
reasoning and argument used and the political forces that finally established
the doctrine and enforced it by confiscation, prohibition, punishment and
murder.

This will clearly show the frail, human foundation the
doctrine of the Trinity rests on, and dissipate the weight it appears to have
from centuries of "orthodox" acceptance.

COUNCIL OF NICE

Of the Council of Nice, 352 AD, where the doctrine of the
Trinity was first officially formulated, the well-known trinitarian historian
Mosheim, a Lutheran, admits (Century 4, Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 1):

"....the discussions concerning the three persons in the Godhead, among those
who approved the decisions of the council of Nice. There is so little clearness
and discrimination in these discussions, that they seem to rend the one God into
three Gods. Moreover, those idle fictions, which a regard for the prevailing
opinions of the day had induced most theologians to embrace, even before the
time of Constantine, were now in various ways confirmed, extended and
embellished. Hence it is that we see on every side evident traces of excessive
veneration for saints in heaven, of belief in a fire to purify souls on leaving
the body, of partiality for priestly celibacy, the worship of images and relics,
and for many other opinions which, in process of time, almost banished the true
religion, or at least very much obscured and corrupted it.

"Genuine piety was gradually supplanted by a long train of superstitious
observances, which were derived partly from a preposterous disposition to adopt
profane rites. To the temples, to water consecrated with certain forms, and to
likenesses of holy men, the same efficacy was ascribed and the same privileges
assigned, as had been attributed to the pagan temples, statues and lustrations
before the advent of Christ."

This is a trinitarian's description of conditions in the
Catholic Church during the time the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated
and imposed.

In the same chapter, Mosheim says: "The doctors who were
distinguished for their learning explained the sacred doctrines after the manner
of Origen (see notes below on Origen) on whom they fixed their eye -- in
accordance with the principles of that philosophy which they learned in their
youth at school, namely, the Platonic philosophy as corrected by Origen. Those
who wish to get a full insight into this subject may examine Gregory Nazianzen
among the Greeks and Augustine among the Latins who were regarded in the
subsequent ages as the only patterns worthy of imitation, and may be fitly
styled, next to Origen, the parents and supporters of philosophic or scholastic
theology. They were both admirers of Plato."

PLATONIC INFLUENCE

Plato was the heathen Greek philosopher (around 400 BC) who
popularized the Egyptian doctrine of the immortality of the soul. He was the
brightest star and greatest influence in the pagan system of philosophy that
Christianity in its original purity set out to combat (1Co 1;2). But Platonic
philosophers became dominant in the Catholic Church, and Platonic philosophy has
dominated the beliefs of "orthodox" Christendom from the 3rd century AD to the
present. The earliest Christians bitterly fought heathen philosophy; the later
"Christians" adopted it.

Origen, mentioned by Mosheim as influential in this
Platonizing movement (around 200-250 AD), was one of the greatest (and perhaps
the greatest) influences in establishing this trend in the Church. Of him,
Mosheim says (Cent. 2, Part 2, Chap. 1, Sec. 5): "A new class of philosophers
had grown up in Egypt... they much preferred Plato, and embraced most of his
dogmas concerning God, the human soul, and the universe. This philosophy was
adopted by such of the learned at Alexandria as wished to be accounted
Christians, and yet to retain the rank of philosophers. All those who in this
century presided in the schools of the Christians at Alexandria are said to have
approved it."

Translator's footnote at this place in Mosheim: "This
cultivation of philosophy by Christian teachers greatly displeased those who
were attached to the ancient simple faith, as taught by Christ and his apostles;
for they feared, what afterwards actually happened, that the purity and
excellence of divine truth would suffer by it. The issue of the long contest
between them was that the advocates of philosophy prevailed."

Continuing Mosheim: "This mode of philosophizing received some
modification when Ammonius Saccas laid the foundation of that sect which is
called the New Platonic... The grand objects of Ammonius, to bring all sects and
religions into harmony, required him to do much violence to the sentiments and
opinions of all parties, philosophers, priests and Christians -- and
particularly by allegorical interpretations. He assumed... that the public
religions of all nations should be corrected by this ancient (Platonic)
philosophy... With these Egyptian notions, he united the philosophy of Plato...
Finally, the dogmas of other sects he construed, as far as was possible, by
means of art, ingenuity and the aid of allegories into apparent coincidence with
Egyptian and Platonic principles... This new species of philosophy, imprudently
adopted by Origen and other Christians, did immense harm to Christianity. For it
led the teachers of it to involve in philosophical obscurity many parts of our
religion which were in themselves plain and easy to be understood; and to add to
the precepts of the Savior no few things of which not a word can be found in the
holy Scriptures... And finally it alienated the minds of many, in the following
centuries, from Christianity itself, and produced a heterogeneous species of
religion, consisting of Christian and Platonic principles combined. And who is
able to enumerate all the evils and injurious changes which arose from this new
philosophy -- from this attempt to reconcile true and false religions with each
other?"

Editor's footnote at this place in Mosheim: "That philosophy
has injured enormously genuine Christianity will be readily conceded by all who
rest faith solely upon the rock of Scripture... When such persons are asked to
account for the existence of religious principles and usages which are incapable
of proof from the sacred volume, and even seem at variance with it, they have
only to cite the semi-Christian school of philosophy which arose at Alexandria
before the second century closed."

(It will be noted from an earlier quotation that the most
distinguished "Christian" teachers of the 4th century looked to Origen and the
Platonic philosophy as their model. Any doctrines therefore -- such as the
Trinity -- formulated at this time are bound to be more pagan than
Christian.)

Returning to Mosheim's history of the 4th century, he records
concerning the conduct and character of the church leaders (Cent. 4, Part 2,
Chap. 2, Sec. 5): "The bishop of Rome took precedence over all others of the
episcopal order. He exceeded all other bishops in the splendor of the church
over which he presided, in the magnitude of his revenues and possessions, and in
the sumptuousness and magnificence of his style of living. These marks of power
and worldly greatness were so fascinating to the minds of Christians even in
this age that often the most obstinate and bloody contests took place at Rome
when a new pontiff was to be created. A shocking example of this is afforded by
the disturbance at Rome in the year 366. The contention caused a cruel war,
great loss of life, conflagrations and battles... The vices of the clergy,
especially of those who officiated in large and opulent cities, were augmented
in proportion to the increase of their wealth, honors and advantages. The
bishops had shameful quarrels among themselves respecting the extent of their
jurisdiction and boundaries; and while they trampled on the rights of the people
and of the inferior clergy, they vied with the civil governors of provinces in
luxury, arrogance and voluptuousness."

"When there was nothing any longer to be feared from enemies
without; when the character of most bishops was tarnished with arrogance,
luxury, effeminacy, animosity, resentments, and other defects; when the lower
clergy neglected their proper duties and were more attentive to idle
controversies than to the promotion of piety and the instruction of the people;
when vast numbers were induced, not by a rational conviction but by the fear of
punishment and the hope of worldly advantage to enrol themselves as Christians
-- how can it surprise us that on all sides the vicious appeared a host, and the
pious a little band almost overpowered by them?... The more honorable and
powerful could sin with impunity, and only the poor and the unfortunate felt the
severity of the laws."

Such is a trinitarian historian's testimony concerning the
times in which the doctrine of the Trinity was developed on the admitted basis
of human speculation and Platonic philosophy. Of the methods of argument and
persuasion used by the church leaders of this period, Mosheim says: "From the
disputes with those who were regarded as opposed to divine truth, the ancient
simplicity had nearly taken its flight; and in place of it, dialectical
subtleties and quibbles, invectives and other disingenuous artifices had
succeeded."

"With the ancient form of discussion, new sources of argument
were in this age combined. For the truth of doctrines was proved by the number
of martyrs who had believed so, by prodigies and by the confessions of devils,
that is, of persons in whose bodies some demon was supposed to reside. The
discerning cannot but see that all proofs drawn from such sources are very
fallacious, and very convenient for dishonest men who would practice imposition.
And I greatly fear that most of those who at this time resorted to such proofs,
though they might be grave and eminent men, may be justly charged with a
dangerous propensity to use deception. Ambrose, in controversy with the Arians,
brings forward persons possessed with devils, who are constrained, when the
relics of Gervasius and Protasius are produced, to cry out that the doctrine of
the Nicene council concerning three persons in the Godhead is true and divine,
and the doctrine of the Arians false and pernicious.... This testimony of the
prince of darkness Ambrose regards as proof altogether
unexceptionable."

"To these defects in the moral system of the age must be added
two principal errors now almost publicly adopted, and from which afterwards
immense evils resulted. The first was that to deceive and lie is a virtue, when
religion can be promoted by it. This principle had been embraced in the
preceding centuries, and it is almost incredible what a mass of the most insipid
fables and what a host of pious falsehoods have through all the centuries grown
out of it, to the great detriment of true religion. If some inquisitive person
were to examine the conduct and the writings of the greatest and most pious
teachers of this century, I fear that he would find about all of them infected
with this leprosy. I cannot except Ambrose, nor Hilary, nor Augustine, nor
Gregory Nazianzen, nor Jerome."

Such were the principles of the men who formulated the
doctrine of the Trinity, and with the aid of the civil power imposed it upon the
whole body of believers on pain of severe punishment, as we shall see in later
quotations.

Of the general conditions of worship in this century, Mosheim
says (Cent. 4, Part 2, Chap. 4, Sec. 1):

"The Christian bishops introduced, with but slight alterations, into the
Christian worship, those rites and institutions by which formerly the Greeks and
Romans and others had manifested their piety and reverence toward their
imaginary deities; supposing that the people would more readily embrace
Christianity if they perceived the rites handed down to them from their fathers
still existing unchanged among the Christians, and saw that Christ and the
martyrs were worshipped in the same manner as formerly their gods were. There
was, accordingly, little difference in these times between the public worship of
the Christians and that of the Greeks and Romans. In both there were splendid
robes, mitres, tiaras, wax-tapers, crosiers, processions, lustrations, images,
golden and silver vases, and innumerable other things. No sooner had Constantine
renounced the religion of his ancestors than magnificent temples were everywhere
erected, adorned with pictures and images, and both in external and internal
form very similar to the temples of the gods. True religion copied after
superstition."

"The prayers fell off greatly from the ancient simplicity and majesty, a
considerable degree of vain inflation being admitted into them. The public
discourses, among the Greeks especially, were formed according to the rules for
civil eloquence, and were better adapted to call forth the admiration of the
rude multitude who love display, than to amend the heart. And that no folly or
senseless custom might be omitted in their public assemblies, the people were
allowed to applaud their orators, as had been practiced in forums and theatres;
nay, were bidden to clap besides. Who would suppose that men who were appointed
to show to others the emptiness of all human things would become so
senseless?"

"From the middle of the second century a change began to take place in the
outward circumstances of Christianity. Should the church take the decisive step
into the world? Or ought she, on the other hand to remain as she had been at
first, a society of religious devotees, separated and shut out from the world by
a rigorous discipline? It was natural that warning voices should then be raised
in the church against secular tendencies, that the well-known counsels about the
imitations of Christ should be held up in their literal strictness before
worldly Christians, that demands should be made for a restoration of the old
discipline and severity, and for a return to apostolic simplicity and purity.
The church as a whole, however, decided otherwise. She marched through the open
door into the Roman state. With the aid of its philosophy she created her new
Christian theology."

The cornerstone of this "new Christian theology", based on
pagan philosophy, is the doctrine of three Gods, three Persons in the "Godhead."
How this doctrine of the Trinity was developed during this period is frankly
explained by a trinitarian writer in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition,
Volume 23, page 240, article "Theism":

"The propositions constitutive of the dogma of the Trinity -- the propositions
in the symbols of Nice, Constantinople and Toledo relative to the immanent
distinctions and relations in the Godhead -- were not drawn directly from the
New Testament, and could not be expressed in New Testament terms. They were the
products of reason speculating on a revelation to faith. They were only formed
through centuries of effort, only elaborated by the aid of the conceptions and
formulated in the terms of Greek and Roman metaphysics. The evolution of the
doctrine of the Trinity was far the most important fact in the doctrinal history
of the church during the first five centuries of its post-apostolic
existence."

Surely the ignorance and audacity of this, from a scriptural
point of view, takes our breath away! How terribly true and fitting are the
words of Jude: "It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye
should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints." And Paul said: "I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole
counsel of God" (Act 20:27). And "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world, for after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God,
it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1Co
1:20,21).

Poor Jude! Poor Paul! What back numbers they were! Of course
they could not understand that there were three Gods. They only had the
inspiration of God -- they completely lacked that essential aid -- Greek and
Roman metaphysics, without which the doctrine of three Gods could not be
formulated.

The "Greek and Roman metaphysics" from which the doctrine of
the Trinity was adopted, are referred to by Gibbon in his "Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire" (21:6): "The genius of Plato, informed by his own meditation
or by the traditional knowledge of the priests of Egypt, had ventured to explore
the mysterious nature of the Deity. When he had elevated his mind to the sublime
contemplation of the first self-existent, necessary cause of the universe, the
Athenian sage was incapable of conceiving how the simple unity of his essence
could admit the infinite variety of distinct and successive ideas which compose
the model of the intellectual world; how a Being purely incorporeal could
execute that perfect model, and mold with a plastic hand the rude and
independent chaos. The vain hope of extricating himself from these difficulties,
which must ever oppress the feeble powers of the human mind, might induce Plato
to consider the divine nature under the threefold modification -- of the first
cause, the reason or Logos, and the soul or spirit of the universe. His poetic
imagination sometimes fixed and animated these metaphysical abstractions; the
three original principles were represented in the Platonic system as three Gods,
united with each other by a mysterious and ineffable generation."

It is clear from this, as the trinitarian writer said in the
Encyclopedia Britannica, that Christianity had to go to Greek metaphysics (and
this term always means Plato, the center of the system) to formulate its
doctrine of the Trinity. Surely we are compelled to wonder what Christianity
could possibly have done without the help of the indispensable heathen
philosopher Plato!

Mosheim (an esteemed, orthodox Lutheran trinitarian) describes
the long civil war that attended the development of the doctrine, and its
enforcement by civil power, finally ending in trinitarian triumph through the
stern and energetic measures of the Emperor Theodosius (Cent. 4, Chap. 5, sec.
14):

"After the death of Constantine the Great (337 AD) one of his sons, Constantius,
the emperor of the East was very partial to the Arian cause, but Constantine and
Constans (two other sons) supported, in the western parts where they governed,
the decisions of the Nicene council. Constantius, being devoted to the Arians,
involved the friends of the Nicene council in numerous evils and calamities. The
Nicene (trinitarian) party made no hesitation to return the same treatment.
Julian (the next emperor) had no partialities for either. Jovian espoused the
orthodox sentiments. Valentinian adhered to the decisions at Nice, and therefore
in the West the Arian sect -- a few churches excepted -- was wholly
extirpated.

"Valens, on the contrary, took sides with the Arians, and hence in the East many
calamities befell the orthodox. Gratian restored peace to the orthodox. After
him, Theodosius the Great, by depriving the Arians of all their churches, caused
the decisions of the Nicene council to triumph everywhere, and none could any
longer publicly profess Arian
doctrines."

This finally settled the question, for all time, as to whether
there are three Gods, or one God. The Encyclopedia Britannica' 9th ed, vol 23,
page 259, article "Theodosius," records: "It was not, however, till his illness
at Thessalonica that the emperor received baptism at the hands of Bishop
Ascholius, whereupon, says the historian Sozomen, he issued a decree (February,
380) in favor of the faith of St. Peter and Pope Damasus of Rome. This was to be
the true catholic faith; the adherents of other creeds were to be reckoned as
heretics and punished. Other edicts forbade the unorthodox to hold assemblies in
the towns and enjoined the surrender of all churches to the catholic
bishops."

Gibbon records (ch 27): "Theodosius was the first of the
emperors baptized into the true faith of the Trinity. As the emperor ascended
from the holy font, he dictated a solemn edict: 'Let us believe the sole deity
of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, under an equal majesty and a pious
Trinity. We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of
Catholic Christians; and as we judge that all others are extravagant madmen, we
brand them with the infamous name of Heretics, and declare that their
conventicles shall no longer usurp the respectable appellation of churches.
Besides the condemnation of Divine Justice, they must expect to suffer the
severe penalties, which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think
proper to inflict upon them!' "

"The emperor convened a synod of 150 bishops who proceeded to
complete the theological system which had been established in the council of
Nice.

"A final and unanimous sentence was pronounced to ratify the
equal Deity of the Holy Ghost. Their knowledge of religious truth may have been
preserved by tradition, or it may have been communicated by inspiration, but the
sober evidence of history will not allow much weight to the personal authority
of the Fathers of Constantinople (this synod).

"Many of the same prelates who now applauded the orthodox
piety of Theodosius had repeatedly changed, with prudent flexibility, their
creeds and opinions, and in the various revolutions of the church and state, the
religion of their sovereign was the rule of their obsequious faith. In the space
of 15 years Theodosius promulgated at least 15 severe edicts against the
heretics, more especially against those who rejected the doctrine of the
Trinity. The rigorous prohibition of conventicles was carefully extended to
every possible circumstances in which the heretics could assemble with the
intention of worshipping God and Christ according to the dictates of their
conscience. The sectaries were gradually disqualified for the possession of
honorable or lucrative employments..." (GVG).